Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inadequate inquiry empowered the CIT to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders passed by the CIT, finding them to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was ad-hoc and based on an estimate without pointing out specific infirmities in the audited accounts. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied on that addition cannot sustain. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the AO was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not specifically state whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This lack of specificity rendered the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the cash discounts and incentives provided by the assessee were in the nature of trade discounts given for timely payment or purchase volume, not commission. There was a principal-to-principal relationship, not principal-agent, thus Section 194H was not applicable.
The Tribunal, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution as the assessee failed to pursue the appeal effectively.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal was filed contrary to the Department's policy.
The Tribunal held that carriage fees paid to multi-system operators for telecasting programs are covered under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee's TDS deduction was correct, and the orders passed by the AO were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued by the AO did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on a retracted statement, without corroborating evidence or providing an opportunity for cross-examination, was not sustainable. The CBDT instructions also discourage such additions without tangible material.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for employee's PF/ESI contribution, following the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court's decision that payment before the return filing date is sufficient. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, holding that no such disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned during the year.
The Tribunal held that the payments were made to individual labourers who were employees of the assessee, and not to contractors. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the additional payments were made under a full and final settlement and not under the VRS scheme, thus not covered by Section 35DDA. The payments were considered an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim was allowable as per law and the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii). Regarding depreciation, it was held to be consequential to the treatment of a business sale as a slump sale, which was decided in favour of the assessee in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise an assessment order under Section 263 if the AO's inquiry was not proper or adequate, even if the AO had made some formal inquiries. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be validly passed.
The Tribunal held that client code modifications were negligible in number compared to total transactions and were done online with the knowledge of the stock exchange. Since transactions were accounted for and losses/profits accrued to the concerned parties, there was no justification for disallowing the loss in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that cess on green leaf is an allowable expenditure, following a Supreme Court decision. It also held that depreciation is an allowance, not an expenditure, and thus allowable despite being claimed on assets purchased from a NABARD account.
The Tribunal held that estimated disallowances without identifying specific defective vouchers are not sustainable. The Assessing Officer should have considered business nature, past history, and books of accounts before making ad-hoc disallowances.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inadequate inquiry empowered the CIT to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders passed by the CIT, finding them to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim was allowable as per law and the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii). Regarding depreciation, it was held to be consequential to the treatment of a business sale as a slump sale, which was decided in favour of the assessee in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be based on valid grounds and within the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be based on valid grounds and within the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be based on valid grounds and within the prescribed time limits.